Become a Fan

May 27, 2009

We are nearing the end of the legislative session in most states, and a lot of states are passing some solid animal ownership laws, and deciding against some of the policies that have proven to be bad policy. While none of these policies is perfect, they at least are movements in the right direction because they are focusing on a) actual causes of dog bites, b) irresponsible pet owners and c) policies that have proven themselves to be effective. I haven't read all of the wording of each of these laws, so if folks in these areas have read the entire laws, I'd love to hear your takes on them. But at least, on their face, they appear to be steps in the right direction toward how we deal with canine laws.

Here are a few of the policies and some pros and cons (mostly pros) of the passed state laws:

The Law, SB 132, makes Nevada the 3rd state to specifically limit the number of hours a dog can be tethered or chained each day. Beginning October 1, 2009, a dog cannot be chained for more than 14 hours a day and a tether has to be at least 12' long.

The good: most professional organizations that deal in canine behavior admit that tethering as a sole form of containment often leads to canines that are undersocialized and can lead to frustration which can build to aggression. The statistics show that a fairly large number of major bites and attacks occur with dogs that either bite people that approach (often unwary children) or break free from their tethers and attack. I think overall, minimizing the amount of time and the way a dog can be tethered is a good way to improve overall public safety.

The bad: I still worry about what happens to dogs that's owners are in violation of the law. Are they immediately confiscated to where they end up in the overcrowded shelter system where death is a likely option? Are there programs set up for low-income owners who cannot afford fencing and their landlord will not allow the dogs inside the rental home? The devil is in the details with these as while I support the idea of laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, I am always concerned about not creating situations where unware owners with good intentions lose their dogs, or where the laws are used as an excuse to confiscate animals that end up dead in our shelters. I'm not a believer that being on a chain (for most dogs) is a "fate worse than death". If these laws can be enforced in a way that allows for the vast majority of dog owners -- even those with a first-time violation -- to keep their dogs, I'm in favor. If the laws are used to increase the number of animals killed in shelters, I am not. I would prefer that any anti-tethering law preclude seizure for first time offenders.

This bill prohibit people convicted of violent or drug-related felonies from owning an unaltered dog for up to 10 years after being released from prison. It also prevents them from owning any dog legally declared vicious based on its behavior. Felons who are covered under the law include those that have been convicted of the sale or production of methamphetamine, marijuana, other drugs, deadly weapons offenses and dog fighting offenses.

The Good: A lot of bad policies are created in an attempt to eliminate dog fighting and the use of protection dogs for drug houses. This type of law will put restrictions on people who would be considered 'high risk' of running illegal operations in the future, including owning dangerous or fighting dogs. While some states have tried to pass similar laws to preclude any dog ownership to people who fall into this category, I think that this actually undermines the effectiveness of a lot of good prison dog programs where dogs are used to help many prisoners develop compassion and for rehabilitation before they are released. I think these programs are too valuable to undermine. But allowing them to own any dog, of any breed, as long as it is sterilized, is a good way to provide limitations on high risk dog owners, without undermining good, successful rehabilitation programs.

The Bad: I don't see a lot of downside to a law like this, except I don't think anyone who has been convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony dog fighting should be allowed to own dogs again and that might be a way to tighten this law up in the future.

This law essentially is the three strikes law that targets habitually irresponsible dog owners. If a dog owner owns a dog that is responsible for a 2nd attack, the owenr could face up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. If there is a 3rd attack by the owner's dog, the owner could face a felony penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The dog just has to be owned by the same owner, it does not have to be the same dog.

The good: This is certainly targeted toward habitually irresponsible dog owners who repeatedly own dogs that attack. Many times the laws are written to target the dogs, but this one takes the "dog" out of the equation and really targets the owner who is at fault. This could really help get after the very tiny percentage of owners that cause a large part of the problem.

The bad: I don't know how "attack" is defined here. I hope there is some common sense in this definition that doesn't nail someone for having a "nippy" dog that ends up sending someone to jail for a couple of small nips.

April 30, 2008

Apparently yesterday, police showed up at a man's (Jim Conaway) property to issue a warrant to a handiman that was doing repair work on the man's house. While the police were serving the warrant, that man's dog, which he describes as a "Labrador Retriever Mix" (even though police and neighbors say the dog looked and acted like a "pit bull", whatever that means) became agitated, and broke his chain. Police officers then shot the dog 5 times and killed it.

The dog was then taken away by animal control -- who apparently had a good day yesterday and responded faster than their normal 4 hour response time.

The dog was taken to animal control, and incinerated. The man made says he made several attempts to contact animal control so he could get his dog's remains back and pay his last respects, but animal control says they have no record of the calls and the dog was incinerated before he got a chance to get the dog back.

"The incinerator is fired up as soon as possible" said Animal Control Spokesperson Teresa Clark. Those are never the words you want to hear from an animal control department that euthanizes kills 70% of the animals that enter the shelter.

Meanwhile, Conaway is upset that he was never contacted. Animal control says that because the dog wasn't wearing tags they didn't know who the owner was -- although Conaway points out that the dog was on killed on his property, so they actually knew where he lived and could have made an effort to communicate with him first.

This whole event took place on the 3600 block of Roberts -- which should be noted is in a tougher area of town where the average HH income is about $25,000 and nearly 30% of the people that live in the zip code live below the poverty line.

Here are some of my thoughts/lessons from this little keystone cop episode:

1) Don't leave your dog chained up unsupervised. Not only does it tend to make the dog more aggressive but it leaves your dog vulnerable to strange situations that are beyond your control and could be harmed.

4) Can we paleeesse train police officers how to deal with dogs in a manner other than just shooting them? Pretty please? This dog was on his own property and the police officers were actually intruding there. This is really unfair that this guy's dog got shot over this. I'm seeing WAY too many police-shoot-dog stories these days that appear as if they could have been avoided.

5) Is compassion too much to ask for from animal control/police when they kill someone's dog to at least make an effort to contact the owner before the dog is incenerated?

7) Apparently any dog that is aggressive "looks and acts like a 'pit bull' according to neighbors and police, which is one of the many reasons breed ID issues are so rampant in news stories and these types of dogs are over-represented in press accounts.

April 22, 2008

First, the city of Osceola, MO repealed its long-standing ban on 'pit bull type' dogs and has replaced it with a breed neutral dangerous dog ordinance. I really like Osceola's ordinance. It has two designations of aggressive dogs. "Dangerous" dogs have bitten someone, chased someone on the street in a menacing manner or have a tendency or disposition to attack. Vicious dogs have inflicted serious damage on a person or other domestic animal. Dangerous dogs have to be confined in enclosures, have posted signs, mandated spay/neuter, training and insurance. The dog must also be muzzled in public.

One thing I really like about this ordinance is that it allows people to request an appeal of the dangerous dog designation. So after one year, if someone can demonstrate that through proper training and socialization the dog is no longer dangerous, the restrictions will be lifted. Encouraging good ownership. I like it.

Vicious dogs will be either euthanized or have to be removed from the city.

One more thing I really like about the ordinance is that it allows for non-aggressive dogs to be under "voice control" in public. So a person can have their dog off leash and as long as the dog is responsive to voice commands and an owner calls them and they come they are able to walk off-leash. Again, it encourages good ownership. I like it.

Wellington still has BSL on the table for later discussion. It is my hope that they will continue to move forward with progressive ordinances instead of outdated (and never smart even back in the day) ordinances like BSL.

My one recommendation and hope for the people of Wellington is that they use the ordinance as a way to encourage people to get dogs off their chains, and not as a reason to confiscate dogs and later euthanize them in the shelters. I've seen these types of ordinances poorly enforced that have been nightmares, but when properly enforced, I think can be quite good and helpful to the community -- like it has been in Lawrence, KS.

And another tip of the hat to the members of KCDA who helped people in both cities by supplying sample ordinances that are good templates to help cities get what they truly should be striving for: safer cities and humane treatment of pets. Kudos to the people in these cities that reached out to us as well!

March 24, 2008

In the past 6 months, no fewer than 8 dogs have been attacked by Coyotes in suburban Leawood, KS. Six of those attacked have died. This very upscale suburb of KC, has a population of roughly 30,000 with a average Household income of over $100,000. However, many of the neighborhood associations have rules in place that prevent certain types of fencing. Because of this, dogs are increasingly at risk. The story mentions several dogs that were plucked off of chains, pulled out of electric fences, and even coyotes jumping over small fences.

One owner even noted that he feared that the coyote's would even attack a small child (when have I heard that one before?) Coyote attacks on people are extremely rare.

All of this further emphasizes why leaving your dog tethered while unsupervised is a bad idea, and why I'm not a fan of electric fences (which keep your dogs in, but not predators out).

I could also go into a long spiel about suburban sprawl and taking natural envirnoments away from wild animals, but will spare everyone the rant.

March 12, 2008

There was an article last week from the Austin Statesman newspaper that indicates that Austin's new law prohibiting tethering is causing more difficulties in low-income communities than in higher income communities.

There are several perceived reasons for the discrepency:

1) Fencing can be expensive and less of an option in low-income neighborhoods

2) More homes are rentals in the lower-income neighborhoods and landlords may be less willing to put in fencing or allow dogs in homes.

3) Some people may prefer to keep guard dogs on chains to protect people from entering their door.

One man noted that he had a 5 foot tall chain link fence that his dogs had gotten over before (chain links tend to be pretty easy for dogs to get over because they can use the rungs for climbing) and keeps his dogs on a long chain behind the fence.

"If I had the money to do whatever I want, yeah, I would have them off the chain. But not everybody is capable of getting a 9-foot fence around your whole backyard. That costs a lot of money," Toussaint said.

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of ordinances that restrict tethering to smaller amounts of time or require a dog on a chain to be supervised. I do think that the time on a chain is cruel to the dog and can, over time, lead to hightened aggression. It's also no surprise to me that low-income communities have a higher tendency to chain dogs (and I've also noted before that lower-income areas tend to have higher bite rates too, for a variety of reasons).

Given that dogs in low-income areas tend to be a higher risk (statistically) than in higher income areas, I am ok with animal control spending more time in these areas trying to improve the situation (for the dogs and the residents). However, it is very important in my mind that animal control officers use the law as a tool to try to help the people and the dogs and not as reason to confiscate dogs (that are later killed at the shelter) that don't apply. I think that it is imperative for officers to work with owners like Mr. Toussaint (who at least sounds like a caring dog owner based on the article) who really want to be responsible, caring and loving dog owners but lack the financial resources to build tall privacy fences.

If ACOs and animal welfare groups (like the one in Austin trying to raise money to help people build fences) work with these owners, I think a lot of great things can happen. Unfortunately, under the wrong watchful eyes, some animal control officers could use this as an excuse to take animals from otherwise well-meaning owners. Or, it could create such a financial hardship that many people would not have the opportunities to experience the joy that comes with dog ownership.

There is a lot of grey area in this one for me...and a lot of area for people to do a lot of good with dogs and dog owners. Let's be sure that when we push for these types of laws that we know that they don't affect everyone in the same way, and do our best to make allowances for people who want to do the right thing, but may or many not have the financial resources to comply.

2) Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered unless htey are owned by people with breeder permits

3) Allowing residents to keep no more than 6 animals

4) Allowing the city to immediately sieze animals deemed dangerous (which is defined as those that have attacked a person without provocation).

Honestly, most of these recommendations are pretty good. I'm personally a fan of laws that prohibit unsupervised tethering (not all tethering, but tethering where the dog is a sitting dog for abuse, theft or attack which is bad for the dog and for wandering young children). Siezing biting animals is kind of a no-brainer. While I'm not a sure how setting pet limits will actually help their shelter euthanasia numbers (it will tend to have the opposite affect), but at least theirs is set pretty high.

However, let's talk about the mandatory spay/neuter law.

Let's start with the reality that there are too many animals in Dallas to possibly enforce this law. given some estimates based on 2000 Census numbers and the growth of the city, I'm estimating Dallas has 480,000 households. Based on AVMA numbers that indicate that 37% of all households own dogs, and each dog owning household owns 1.7 dogs, I'm estimating that there are over 300,000 dogs and based on the same AVMA Census number, 350,000 cats that live in Dallas proper. That's 650,000 animals that their already strapped animal control now has to figure out if they are complaint by being spayed or neutered. These animals would all reproduce and create more animals faster than their animal control could possibly check the animals for compliance. The law is completely unenforceable.

And this is just counting animals with actual owners.

Dallas seems to have a large problem with stray dogs. These dogs don't even have owners....so no law is really going to affect them (most dogs I've encounterd can't read). So while animal control is focusing their resources on enforcing mandatory spay/neuter, these stray animals will be reproducing out on the city's streets...and these dogs are already there because the city doesn't have the resources to pick them all up. Owners seldom have an unwanted litter of puppies and just turn them out on the streets. In order to control the stray dog problem, you must dedicate resources to gathering up stray dogs. That's the only way.

A much better option for the city would be to create a good, low-cost spay/neuter program for low-income pet owners and encourage people to use it. Then, focus the city animal control resources on gathering up stray dogs.

Low cost spay/neuter programs work. New Hampshire and New Jersey have both enacted statewide low-cost spay/neuter programs. Based on their results, they've seen huge decreases in the number of unwanted animals using low cost programs -- and have found that for every dollar they put into these low cost programs, they save $3 on the back end by not having to capture and eventually euthanize the animals. You can read a good bit about the New Hampshire study here.

Chances are, a large part of Dallas' problem is that they have not staffed up animal control resource to keep up with the increased animal (and human) population. Dallas has seen a 23% increase in population over the past 15 years. Given the rise in popularity of pet ownership in the past decade, it is likely that the total pet population has grown at an even faster rate. I seriously wonder if Dallas has increased its animal control resources at the same rate.

There are many good examples of what can help to decrease the "pet overpopulation problem". My first three suggestions are these:

1) Increase animal control resources to round up stray dogs

2) Institute a voluntary, low cost spay/neuter program

3) Work on increasing the number of dogs that are adopted out from their animal control facilities.

December 21, 2007

Overall, I agree that little by little individual freedoms in this country continue to be taken away. But I do feel like anti-tethering ordinances can be written, and enforced, in a way that doesn't violate the Constitution. We, as an animal welfare community, need to realize the unintended consequences of some of the laws that we say we favor and be sure they are well-written and enforced in a way that doesn't violate rights that we used to hold sacred.

December 17, 2007

When I first heard about the news of Tammy Grimes getting sentenced for her crime, I passed it over as a blog topic. It was exactly what I expected, so I expected it not to be big news. However, the news of the event has trickled through the internet world, and I wanted to address it. The world isn't black and white -- there are a lot of shades of gray. People who don't see it that way tend to be very wrong...and tragically so.

For those of you who don't know the story, here's a brief catchup. A couple of years ago, Tammy Grimes, who is the founder of animal welfare group Dogs Deserve Better (a group that pushes for anti-tethering policies) found a dog, Doogie, attached to a chain and in horrible condition. When animal control didn't respond to multiple calls by a neighbor, Grimes removed the dog (Doogie) from the situation, potentially saving the dog's life. When the owner tried to get the dog back, Grimes refused. Grimes video-taped the whole event in hopes that the video tape of the dog's horrible condition would justify the theft of the dog.

Let's make no mistake; Grimes is guilty of theft here. Many could make a strong case that it was justifiable; but it was, no doubt, theft.

Lost in this matter is that Animal Control completely failed to do its job (which would have solved this problem in the first place).

Now, several out there have used this as an opportunity to lash out at Grimes and her group, Dogs Deserve Better. But one particular blog entry, from over at Dog Politics, has really gotten under my skin, so I'm going to respond.

Before I go into the info in that horribly written post rant, a quick note on the writer of Dog Politics. She's on the far right end of the dog spectrum. She's a firm believer in the fact that dogs are property, and as such, any legislation targeting dogs for any reason is a violation of our Constitutional property rights.

The post lumped Grimes and Dogs Deserve Better into the Animal Rights category with HSUS, PETA and Best Friends. Then uses the majority of the post to talk about how HSUS, PETA and Best Friends support BSL and that Grimes is just using her sentencing to raise money for their Animal Rights agenda.

Let me start with the note Best Friends does not support BSL, in any form. HSUS and PETA do, on a varying levels. I'll also note that none of that has a damn thing to do with Tammy Grimes. In fact, a quick search of PETA and HSUS's websites reveal that the two groups combined have mentioned Grimes a mere 3x COMBINED, since at least 2002. And all three of the mentions were of Dog's Deserve Better's Chain-Off event (in different years). However, She groups Grimes into these groups because she considers that because Grimes supports anti-tethering legislation (a violation of her property rights), she assumes that Grimes must then support all other restrictive laws like BSL all the way down to no longer wanting pet ownership (PETA and HSUS ideas).

Here's my beef, and note on the property rights folks. They're right. Overall, each and every day, our government makes new laws that restrict personal freedoms. I'm sick of it. On almost every level.

However, what has become obvious to me is that the property rights folks are losing. Every day. Badly. In almost every form of property I own, the government has some ability to legislate it. My car has to be licensed and every two years I have to have my Hybrid checked to see if it meets admissions standards. My lawn has to be mowed before it gets to a certain height. I have to trim my trees when they get into the power lines. I have keep my house with a decent paint job and structurally sound. I can't allow old refrigerators and toilets to sit out in my lawn, or cars on blocks. If I want to build a new garage, I have to meet certain guidelines, and keep it 4 feet off the property line. I am required to keep my dogs vaccinated for rabies. Pretty much in every form of property that I own, the government has some ability to restrict how I use it.

And this is just for my home, I haven't even begun to hit how they restrict private businesses.

Whether I necessarily agree with these restrictions or not, doesn't change this reality.

I happen to favor some anti-tethering ordinances. I'm completely against all forms of BSL, pet limits and am a huge fan of the long-term presence of dogs and cats as pets.

See, I read the stories about dog attacks that occur in the media every week. I use these media reports to fill this blog. For two years, I've read nearly every dog bite/attack/mauling/fatality story that has been published from around the entire globe. The correlation of dogs being left on chains as their primary form of containment and people being bitten by dogs is undeniable.

If city councils are insistant that they need to "do something" about dog bites, this is the easiest, fairest solution. Additionally, it's one of the few forms of legislation on dogs that has actually proven to WORK to help solve some of the problems of biting/attacking dogs.

Yes, I have some reservations about anti-tethering laws. I get concerned that dogs will be brought inside and kept in even worse conditions (chained in a basement for example) where they cannot be monitored by authorities. Yes. Overall, I'm tired of nanny-government sticking its nose in my business. Yes, I get concerned anytime cities start talking about unnecesariy dog laws (primarily because they seldom get it right). However, overall, a well-thought out and properly enforced tethering ordinance can be very affective.

Do I think that a tethered do gshould be instantly removed from the property? Absolutely not. There are certain Constitutional rights of searches and siezures that still need to be followed (do you hear me KCK?) However, in the long term, I think a good law (and proper enforcement) will be better for dogs, better for owners, better for minimizing dog bites, and thus, better for preventing BSL (becaue you'll minimize dog bites and thus, the perceived need for BSL).

Despite the Dog Politics Writers' thinking, this doesn't make me Animal Rights. It doesn't make me want BSL, or any of the crap that PETA and HSUS push for. It does mean that I see that this isn't an all or nothing world. There are shades of gray. And the people who don't see that scare me almost as much as those organizations that seek to end pet ownership.

I sincerely believe that given what I know about the case, that Grimes deserved her punishment and to be found guilty of theft. But sometimes when you're an activist you have to do things that you believe are right, even if you may suffer consequences at the end. Taking the dog illegally was wrong. But if I were in her situation, I would likely have done the same thing, abnd taken the punishment that awaited me.